List of Figures

Executive Summary

The Internet has created an enormous new offshoot of the software industry: the Internet services industry. This
industry has become a key medium, not just for day-to-day communications and productivity, but also for the
expression of information and ideas.

However, this vitally important new industry exists entirely in the form of the traditional proprietary software model.
Within the general software arena, the free software movement is well established as an alternative to proprietary
software. But as yet, the free software movement has no formal presence within the Internet services
domain.

We are a group of engineers with a vision for the future of Internet services. We believe that the free software
movement as we see it today is just the beginning, and the next major evolutionary phase of free software is its
strong emergence into the Internet services arena.

We believe that the intellectual property ownership mechanisms of patents, copyright and trade secrecy, as they exist
today, have almost no legitimacy at all within this arena. At bottom these ownership mechanisms are business
constructs, intended to provide competitive advantage in a commercial context. That they do. But they do so at great
cost to the broader society. Some of the societal costs are obvious; others are more subtle and indirect. But the costs
are real, and very far-reaching. They include:

A
crippling
of
the
software
engineering
profession.
These
ownership
mechanisms
cut
directly
across
the
engineering
freedomofaction
that
is
the
foundation
of
the
software
development
process.

The
loss
to
the
public
of
the
technical
benefits
of
unrestricted
engineering
development.

In
the
case
of
Internet
services
based
on
commercial
providers,
the
compromising
of
a
number
of
important
civil
liberties,
including
personal
privacy,
freedom
of
information,
and
freedom
of
speech.

A
severe
distortion
of
the
competitive
business
environment.

Eventual
loss
of
governance
of
the
Internet
to
purely
commercial
interests.

Instead of the proprietary software model, we are advocates of the free software movement, in which
software is treated as a communal resource, freely available for reuse by anyone. Our ultimate vision is a
completely open software industry, in which all computing and communications is based entirely on freesoftware.

We are proposing a radically new, completely non-proprietary model for the delivery of Internet services. We call
this the Libre Services model.

Libre Services are an extension of the principles of free software into the Internet services domain. They are Internet
services that may be freely copied and reused by anyone. They are a communal resource, not owned by anyone,
freely available for use by society at large. Any company, organization or individual can reproduce
and host any Libre Service, either for their own use, or for commercial or non-commercial delivery
to others. The Libre Services model exists in relationship to the proprietary Internet services model
of AOL, MSN and Yahoo, in an analogous way to how GNU/Linux exists in relation to Microsoft
Windows.

This is a radical departure from the existing commercial model, with societal benefits that are equally radical and
far-reaching. The Libre Services model provides a range of critical freedoms that are entirely absent from the
proprietary model:

The
freedom
of
the
engineering
community
to
engage
in
unrestricted
creative
development,
building
new
and
better
Internet
services
for
the
benefit
of
the
public.

The
freedom
of
any
group
or
community
to
operate
their
own
Libre
Services,
according
to
whatever
principles
they
see
fit.
Since
they
are
no
longer
subject
to
the
actions
of
a
commercial
service
provider,
this
guarantees
a
range
of
critical
civil
liberties:
privacy,
protection
against
government
monitoring,
freedom
of
information,
freedom
of
ideas,
freedom
of
speech.

The
freedom
of
the
business
community
to
participate
in
the
Internet
services
industry,
without
any
intellectual
property
barriers
standing
in
the
way.
Libre
Services
transform
the
closed
industry
of
today
into
a
truly
open
industry,
creating
major
new
business
opportunities
and
industry
growth.

Libre Services are the right way to deliver Internet services to the user. Our goal is to establish Libre Services as a
non-proprietary alternative to the existing proprietary services industry.

In this article we describe the Libre Services concept, and how we intend to turn it into a reality. A key component
of our bootstrapping strategy is a project-based model for collaborative participation. We have defined a set of
independent, self-contained projects required to move this initiative forward. This allows efficient, coordinated
collaboration on multiple bootstrapping tasks in parallel.

1 Introduction

1.1 The software development process

Software development is an inherently cumulative and collaborative process. It is cumulative in the sense that new
software is created by assembling existing software constructs into ever more complex and powerful constructs. And
it is collaborative in the sense that it is readily amenable to joint, collective development by large numbers of
organizations and individuals.

For this reason software has a unique capability to undergo rapid and complex evolutionary growth. This is nowhere
better demonstrated than by the extraordinary growth and vitality of the Internet itself.

However, this evolutionary capability depends critically on freedom of action. It depends on the freedom of the
software engineering community to reuse existing software constructs, and engage in collaborative development,
without restriction. Any restrictions placed on this freedom inhibit the growth potential of the software and Internet
industries.

By contrast, the conventional business model is based on asset ownership, and denial of that ownership to competing
companies. In the case of the software industry, asset ownership is effected by means of a proprietary
software model, in which software ownership is maintained by means of patents, copyright, and trade
secrecy.

However, these ownership mechanisms cut directly across the essential freedom of action that gives software its
unique evolutionary capabilities. All three mechanisms explicitly deny access to existing software constructs. They
prevent software reuse and collaborative development, and therefore inhibit the natural software development
process.

The proprietary software model is in fundamental conflict with the nature of software itself.

1.2 The free software movement

Twenty years ago Richard Stallman understood this very well, and he and others formulated the principles of freesoftware, a completely non-proprietary software model [1]. Under this model software is a communal
resource, freely available to the entire software development community without any restrictive ownership
mechanisms.1

In 1985 Stallman and others founded the Free Software Foundation [2], an organization dedicated to the promotion
of free software. They did the necessary intellectual work to formalize the principles of free software, created
written materials to define and promote the free software concept, and established a framework for collaborative
development of free software projects.

This early work led eventually to the creation of GNU/Linux, the foundational software for the entire free software
movement [3].

Twenty years later, this movement is mature and robust. It is fully proven as a viable development model that can
equal or exceed the capabilities of the proprietary model.

1.3 Our philosophy

We believe that the intellectual property ownership mechanisms of patents, copyright and trade secrecy, as they exist
today, have virtually no legitimacy at all within the digital domain.

Many of our laws and practices serve to balance rights between potentially conflicting constituencies. As originally
conceived, and as practiced within the material domain, these intellectual property mechanisms may well serve this
purpose. But within the digital domain, they do not.

These ownership mechanisms confer unquestionable competitive advantage on their owner. But they do so at
unacceptable cost to society at large. Patents, copyright and trade secrecy explicitly prevent the cumulative and
collaborative development processes that give software its unique potential. As a result society is denied the full
realization of this potential.

We believe that the proprietary model is the wrong basis for the software industry. Instead, we are advocates of the
free software model, in which software is treated as a communal resource, subject to complete freedom of action by
anyone.

The new conventions of non-material capitalism

We further believe that the free software movement as we see it today is only the beginning. It is the first
manifestation of a much bigger cultural shift: a shedding of the traditional conventions of material
capitalism, and the adoption of a new set of conventions based on non-material capitalism. Western
capitalistic societies are rooted in the historical conventions and institutions of material products and
materially-based services. In the digital domain these conventions appear in the form of the proprietary software
model.

But in the non-material world, there is a better way of doing things. The power of free software derives from a
relinquishing of the traditional intellectual property conventions. Instead, free software is based on a set of principles
that allow powerful generative forces to come into play. Thus traditional copyright is rewritten in the form of
copyleft; ownership of software via patents is relinquished in favor of patent-free protocols and software;
self-interested software hoarding via trade secrecy is relinquished in favor of a convention of openness and
sharing.

The result is a culture of creative freedom and collaboration, based on collective pooling of resources. Twenty years
after the fact the premise appears very simple: in the digital domain there is more to be gained by collective pooling
than by individual ownership.

We believe that these principles apply, not just in the digital domain, but throughout the non-material
domain in general. We believe that these principles have equivalent power and can bring equivalent
benefits in many fields throughout the sciences and humanities. We invite other professions to look
critically at the free software movement, and consider applying its principles to their own field of
endeavor.

But one thing at a time. The next natural extension of free software is its extension into the domain of Internet
services.

2 The Subscriber Services industry

The Internet has created an enormous new offshoot of the software industry: the Internet services
industry2 .
By Internet services, or Subscriber Services, we mean any service that is provided to a user via the Internet. Some
examples are:

Transactions.
Services
in
which
third
parties
are
matched
up
for
some
type
of
transaction.
Job
listings,
housing
listings,
buying/selling,
auctions,
personal
ads,
rideshareing,
etc.

Businessservices.
Services
provided
over
the
Internet
to
businesses,
such
as
those
provided
by
Salesforce.com
etc.

And many other types of service. The above list is far from complete, nor is our simple categorization of services in
any way definitive. Subscriber Services is a new industry, not yet 20 years old, and still undergoing a process of
disorganized self-definition. Thus far evolution of the industry has been driven by a multitude of ad hoc commercial
initiatives, and it remains in a state of cheerful chaos.

Nevertheless, the scope of what we are describing is extremely large. In effect, it is the entire global Internet
itself.

2.1 The industry today

Though still undergoing chaotic evolution, the Subscriber Services industry is well established. In 2006, generalized
Internet services are provided by several large providers such as AOL, MSN and Yahoo. These major providers
deliver a broad range of services to their subscribers, including most of the examples given above. Google is also
aggressively moving into the generalized services arena, rapidly augmenting its core search service with a variety of
additional services.

In addition to the major providers of generalized services, there is a wide variety of providers of specialized
services, such as classified advertising (Craigslist), auctions (Ebay), airfare and vacation booking (Expedia), job
listings (Monster.com), dating (Match.com), car trading (AutoTrader.com), and numerous others. We can expect that
over time the large general service providers will provide many of these specialized services too, so that the industry
will consolidate into a small number of dominant providers.

In addition to the variety of new services that the Internet has enabled, a fundamental change is occurring in the way
traditional software applications are being provided to the user. Before the appearance of the Internet services
industry, software applications were either run locally, on the user’s own PC, or perhaps on a remote server on a
local area network.

But now traditional software applications are migrating towards a service-based implementation. Many user
applications that hitherto have been implemented as local stand-alone applications, are now being
implemented as Internet services, in which the user is provided with the same or similar functionality via the
Internet.

This represents a fundamental shift in the focus of the software industry. The focus is moving away from software asa product, and towards functionality as a service. This trend is just now becoming widely recognized within the
industry, and there remains confusion about its exact nature and implications. This general confusion is reflected in
the multiplicity of terms used to refer to this trend, such as “software as a service,” “information technology as a
service,” and “transformation of software into services.”

2.2 Domination of the proprietary model

All these developments—both the evolution of the Internet services industry, and the migration of traditional
software into a service-based implementation—are taking place almost entirely in a proprietary context. Even
Google, despite any pretensions it may have to the moral high ground, is based on proprietary software, heavily
defended by patents, copyright and trade secrecy.

Figure 1: Proprietary and non-propietary presence

Figure 1 shows the presence of the proprietary and non-proprietary models in both the software and services arenas.
Within the general software arena, the non-proprietary model has been fully formalized in the form of the free
software movement. The principles of free software have been clearly articulated, and formally codified in the form
of the GPL and other open-source licenses.

In addition, the Free Software Foundation and other organizations exist to provide leadership and advocacy, and to
serve as rallying points for participation. As a result of all this, the free software movement exists as a viable
alternative to the proprietary model.

However, a corresponding set of non-proprietary formalizations does not exist within the services
domain. Today, virtually all Internet services are provided under the traditional proprietary software
model, and as yet the free software movement has no formal presence in this domain. A set of defining
principles has not been established, nor is there any leadership or rallying point for participation in the
services domain, corresponding to the leadership of the Free Software Foundation in the software
domain.

As a result of this there does not exist a non-proprietary alternative to the proprietary services model.

2.3 The problem: Governance by commercial interests

It also continues to undergo a process of consolidation. In the services arena, as in the general software arena, there
are strong forces of convergence towards a small number of dominant providers, and eventually a monopoly. In the
more mature software industry this has resulted in the Microsoft Windows monopoly, now with no proprietary
competition at all.

The services industry is already undergoing a similar process of convergence, and this may continue until there is a
monopoly in this arena too. Microsoft is a particular concern in this regard. With its dominant position in both user
environments (in the form of Windows), and services (in the form of MSN.com), Microsoft can create a level of
integration between its own proprietary user environment and its own proprietary service that cannot be matched by
any of the other major players. Based on its operating system monopoly it can exercise dominance of the services
arena in a way that the other providers cannot, and can eventually achieve a monopoly position there
too.

This trend towards a commercial oligopoly or monopoly presents some societal concerns.

The Internet is a global public resource, and as such requires representation and advocacy for the public interest.
Such representation includes maintaining technical standards and protocols, protecting civil liberties, and preventing
unfair business practices.

Standards and protocols

In the technical arena of standards and protocols, public representation has historically been provided by standards
organizations within the Internet industry, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). But service
providers are under no obligation to use public protocols, and are free to deliver services using their own
proprietary protocols. And if a commercial provider is large enough, in terms of number of subscribers, it
becomes a de facto authority within the industry, able to establish its own protocols as an industry
standard.

The history of Instant Messaging is a good example. Clearly the right answer for Instant Messaging is a set of
non-proprietary public protocols, allowing global interoperability and open participation by all service
providers.

But this is not what happened. Even though IRC (Internet Relay Chat) already existed as an open
protocol for Instant Messaging, the major providers disregarded this entirely. Instead, each defined
its own set of proprietary protocols, in an attempt to take complete ownership of Instant Messaging
functionality and deny this functionality to competing providers. The result was that each provider
created its own island of subscribers, unable to communicate with the subscribers on the competing
islands.

Only when the resulting dysfunctionality became unacceptable to their subscribers did the major providers address
the issue. But not by adopting an open protocol—rather, by implementing interoperability gateways
amongst one another. The major providers now have cross connectivity for Instant Messaging, but the
underlying protocols remain proprietary, and smaller providers are marginalized and at a competitive
disadvantage. In effect the major providers have created a cartel to take complete ownership of Instant
Messaging.

The presence of the free software movement in Instant Messaging remains limited to a small island of IRC users,
who are able to communicate with the proprietary subscribers via interoperability gateways provided by the
proprietary service providers. The major providers thus continue to control the Instant Messaging arena, with the
free software community provided for as a courtesy.

Thus in the technical arena such public representation as exists is ineffective. The large commercial providers are
able to establish their own standards and protocols, and engineering standards organizations such as the IETF have
become largely irrelevant.

Civil liberties

In the area of civil liberties there is no formal public representation at all, and protection of civil liberties remains
entirely in the hands of the commercial service providers.

If the commercial providers could be relied upon to act in the public interest, this would be of no great concern. But
such is not the case. The commercial providers are under no obligation to protect the public welfare. Their sole
mandate is to pursue their own commercial interests, and these may be highly detrimental to the broader interests of
society.

Two recent events demonstrate this very well. In the first event, Microsoft recently shut down the Internet journal of
a Chinese dissident, who had been expressing political views that his government found objectionable. In the second
event, Google recently agreed to censor its search results in China, expunging web content that the government
considers objectionable. Google will base its censorship decisions on guidance provided by Chinese government
officials. So much for the moral high ground.

Both of these actions were taken at the request of the Chinese government, and both companies complied because
this was in their commercial interests: they did so in return for access to the Chinese market. This was a quid proquo arrangement, in which a political favor was exchanged for a commercial one.

Despite the simplistic justifications offered by their respective public relations departments, the fact is that Microsoft
is silencing freedom of speech, and Google is degrading freedom of information. These are clear trespasses against
basic civil liberties.

These are stark illustrations of how commercial interests can be highly injurious to the human condition. Any doubt
we may have about the hazards of entrusting Internet governance to the commercial providers is surely dispelled by
these examples.

2.4 The solution: Free software presence in the services domain

In the general software arena, the free software movement and GNU/Linux play an essential role in providing a
non-proprietary alternative to the Windows monopoly. It is imperative that a similar non-proprietary alternative be
established for the services industry. Without such an alternative, Internet governance will remain largely in the
hands of commercial interests.

All the basic principles of the free software movement carry over into the services domain. In particular,
Internet services are amenable to similar cumulative and collaborative development mechanisms to
software. And as in the case of software, these mechanisms depend critically on the appropriate freedom ofaction.

But in order for these mechanisms to be replicated in the services arena, the proper formalization is required. This
formalization must include: a coherent model for non-proprietary services, a definition of the concept and principles,
creation of industry-wide awareness, a framework for collaborative development, leadership, and a rallying point for
participation. In short, an equivalent movement to the free software movement is required in the Internet services
arena.

3 The Libre Services model

We are proposing a radically new, completely non-proprietary model for the delivery of Internet services. We call
this the Libre Services model.

Libre Services are an extension of the principles of free software into the domain of Internet services. Free software
allows complete freedom of action: it may be copied and reused without restriction. Libre Services provide
equivalent freedom of action: they are Internet services that may be copied, modified, reproduced, extended, and
redistributed in their entirety. Libre Services are:

Implemented
entirely
in
free
software

Based
entirely
on
patent-free
protocols

Reproducible
as
a
complete
service
by
anyone

They are a communal resource, not owned by anyone, freely available for use by society at large. Any
company, organization or individual can reproduce and host any Libre Service, and deliver the service to
others. Or any group of individuals can host the service for themselves, thus acting as their own service
provider.

The Libre Services model exists in relationship to the proprietary Subscriber Services model of AOL, MSN, Yahoo
and Google, in an analogous way to how GNU/Linux exists in relation to Microsoft Windows. Both Libre Services
and GNU/Linux are open and free models, and both provide the essential freedom of action that is absent from the
closed model.

3.1 Technological context

Figure 2: Context for Libre Services

Figure 2 shows how Libre Services fit into the overall free software context. The left side of the figure shows the
general technological requirements, and the center of the figure shows how these are realized today. It should be
noted that this realization represents the general industry environment, and specific implementation
choices we have made, at the time of writing in early 2006. This realization is open to future change and
evolution.

The figure is not unlike the common “hourglass” representation of the OSI (Open Systems Interconnection) and
Internet architectures, in which a high degree of heterogeneity at the upper and lower levels is bridged by a common
set of protocols in the stem of the hourglass.

Figure 2 has a similar shape, but here we are showing how a high degree of heterogeneity among hardware
platforms and user environments is bridged by a unifying set of software components. At the bottom of the figure is
the hardware level, consisting of the large number of hardware platforms and architectures available for client side
and server side computing.

GNU/Linux

In the open-source software world, the key enabling component is the GNU/Linux operating system, providing a
complete environment for open-source software development. Linux, the operating system kernel, is the unifying
interface for running GNU on a wide variety of hardware platforms.

(To place things in historical perspective, the GNU Project was founded in 1984. The earliest version of the Linux
kernel was released in 1991.)

Debian

An important development in the evolution of the open-source software movement was the appearance of
GNU/Linux distributions, or complete GNU/Linux software packages, assembled together for easy installation and
use. The first of these appeared in 1992, soon after the first release of the Linux kernel.

Distributions play an essential role within the GNU/Linux framework. The integration of the various GNU/Linux
components into a usable system is not a simple process. Distributions eliminate the need for a developer to locate,
download, compile, install and integrate a large number of necessary components into a working GNU/Linux
system. Instead, the complexities of system construction are handled transparently by the distribution
software.

Our initial Libre Services implementations are based on the Debian distribution of GNU/Linux [4]. Debian was
founded in 1993, and has emerged as the most practical and reliable distribution for software engineering
development. Equally important, Debian fully conforms to the philosophy of the free software movement. The
Debian project is guided by the Debian Social Contract [5], an explicit statement of the philosophy and guiding
principles of Debian.

Libre Services Integration Platform

The Libre Services Integration Platform (LSIP) is a generalized framework for developing Libre Services. All our
initial implementations are based on LSIP.

LSIP is a set of tools, policies and conventions for services development and deployment. It provides a uniform,
disciplined environment for transformation of software into services, integration, and service aggregation. It allows
efficient integration of free software components into coherent services.

LSIP is the key technological component of Libre Services. It is the component that makes generalized, large-scale
services development practical and efficient.

User environments

Libre Services are implemented as server-side software entities, typically running on servers at the
service provider’s premises, remote from the user. The user interacts with the service using his or
her own computer, and may do so using any of a wide variety of user environments, such as EOE
(Emacs Office Environment), a web browser, thin client, or KDE (K Desktop Environment). These are
shown at the top level of Figure 2. The link between the user environment and the service is the Internet
itself.

Since Libre Services are completely open, there are no proprietary restrictions on which user environment can be
used to interact with the services. The Libre Services model allows any user environment to interact with any service
using any hardware platform.

3.2 Benefits to society

Libre Services bring the cumulative and collaborative development characteristics of free software into the services
arena. They are open to completely unrestricted, large-scale collaborative development, and therefore
have an ability to undergo complex evolutionary growth that cannot be matched by the proprietary
model. In terms of richness of functionality, they have the ability to surpass the proprietary model
completely.

In addition to straightforward end-user functionality, Libre Services also provide a number broader societal
benefits.

Engineered for the user, not for business

In both the free and proprietary models, software is created by engineers. But the motives driving the engineering
effort are entirely different under the two models.

In the proprietary model, engineering acts at the behest of business. And the prime directive of business is to make
profit. Though corporations like to proclaim that their number one concern is the customer, this is a fiction. The
welfare of the customer is of concern to the corporation only insofar as it relates to profit; beyond that it is
meaningless. Under the proprietary model, service providers can and frequently do act directly against the interests
of the user.

But in the free software model, engineering does not take place within a business framework. Instead it is a
collaborative effort, undertaken by many organizations and individuals in a variety of diverse environments.
Therefore the dependence of engineering on business imperatives is severed. The engineering effort no longer
takes place at the behest of business. Instead it is driven by fundamental, constructive engineering
motives: the desire of the software engineering community to create applications of real value to the
user.

The resultant software is therefore fully aligned with the usage, requirements and interests of the user. It is built to
benefit the user, not to benefit business.

Civil liberties: Services operated by the user, for the user

In the proprietary services model, the service provider and the user are two separate and distinct entities. All
policy decisions regarding operation of the service are made by the provider, with little input from the
user.

In particular, the user is entirely subject to the provider’s actions regarding civil liberties issues such as privacy,
censorship, and freedom of speech. The provider’s actions are taken based on commercial considerations, and these
actions may constitute serious violations of the user’s civil liberties.

As we have noted, commercial providers can silence dissent and enforce censorship in order to gain access to
foreign markets. As we will note in the next section, they can also cooperate in government intrusion into their
users’ personal and private affairs. Commercial providers have also cooperated with enforcement of censorship and
freedom of speech restrictions by monitoring web logs and bulletin boards, erasing banned content, and reporting
offenders to government authorities.

Under the Libre Services model, however, any group or community of people can host the service
cooperatively for themselves, and operate it according to whatever policies they see fit. The Libre Services
model thus breaks the separation between the provider and the user—they can now be one and the
same.

Libre Services can be operated by the user, for the user. The civil liberties of the user are thereby assured.

Privacy and security

In the proprietary services model, user activity can be monitored without the user’s knowledge or consent. There are
two forms of monitoring that present societal concerns:

Monitoring
by
commercial
entities

Monitoring
by
government
agencies

In the case of commercial monitoring, any aspect of a user’s activities can be recorded and reviewed by the service
provider. This includes the content of incoming and outgoing e-mail, search queries, websites visited, products and
services purchased—indeed, any service usage that is technologically available to the provider can be monitored,
without the knowledge or consent of the user.

This form of monitoring is much less of an issue in the case of Libre Services because, as we have noted, the
service is designed to benefit the user, not a commercial entity. Since the service is not created for
commercial benefit, there is no great incentive to include commercial monitoring capability within the
service.

But to the extent that commercial monitoring remains a concern, the Libre Services model can provide complete
guarantees of privacy. In the case of proprietary services, based on closed software, monitoring can take place
because the community of users has no way of knowing what the software is actually doing. But in the
case of Libre Services, the complete openness of the software permits verification and authentication
that the service is completely free from all monitoring activity. The community of users is able to
know exactly what the software is doing, and that it is doing no more and no less than they wish it to
do.

Much more worrisome than commercial monitoring is monitoring by the government. National governments may
have very broad powers to monitor their citizens’ usage of Internet services. In the USA, an agency with sufficient
authorization can compel a service provider to disclose all available information about a user, and cooperate in
monitoring all communications and other service usage, without the user’s knowledge or consent. The FBI’s
controversial Carnivore system, for example, is designed to capture all e-mail traffic for a particular targeted
individual. Post-9/11, the necessary authorization can be provided simply by association, at several levels
of remove, with someone the government considers to be a person of interest for national security
reasons.

In the proprietary services model, covert government monitoring is possible because the user has no way of knowingwhat the service provider is doing. In particular, the provider is under no obligation to disclose government
monitoring to the user. But in the case of Libre Services, any individual or organization can prevent covert
monitoring by running the service for themselves, rather than leaving it in the hands of a third-party
provider.

In addition, by eliminating the separation between the provider and the user, the Libre Services model makes current
monitoring practices impractical. Under the proprietary model, a government agency conducts monitoring activity
by directing its compliance demands against a well-defined commercial service provider. But under the Libre
Services model the oligopoly of commercial service providers has disappeared, to be replaced by numerous private
self-providers.

The government can still come knocking and demand access to a user’s information. But it must now direct its
compliance demands against a multiplicity of individual persons and organizations. And it can no longer do this
without the user’s knowledge.

Service stability and continuity

In both the free and the proprietary worlds, software applications and services can be discontinued. The provider of
the application or service can go out of business, or may decide to discontinue supporting the application. In either
case the user may be left with an investment in an “orphaned” application. But the dynamics of how this occurs, and
the effects on the user, are very different under the two models.

In the free software world, application extinction occurs because of migration of the community of users away from
the application towards other, better applications. Extinction occurs because of a process of user-driven convergence,
based on the genuine merits of alternative solutions.

In the proprietary world, applications are left orphaned not by the actions of the users, but by the actions of theprovider. And these actions may be taken for reasons that have little to do with the actual merits of the application,
but may be based on purely business considerations.

Because of these differing dynamics, application orphaning is a gradual and organic process in the free software
world, whereas in the proprietary world it can occur suddenly and without warning.

Thus in the free software world, continuity of applications and services is much less of an issue than in the
proprietary world. Applications persist based on their merits, and where they do not persist, this is to the ultimate
betterment of the industry and the user.

But to the extent that service continuity is of concern to the user, the Libre Services model provides guarantees of
continuity that are completely absent from the proprietary model. First, since the services are a communal resource,
the user is not tied to any particular service provider. The effect of the Libre Services model is to decouple theservice functionality from the service provider. If a provider goes out of business or discontinues providing the
service, a user can simply go to an alternative provider, and be assured of receiving a functionally identical
service.

The same consideration applies to the availability of technical support for the service. Again, since the service is a
communal resource, the user is not tied to any particular vendor for technical support. Under the Libre
Services model, technical support remains readily available for as long as the service itself remains
available.

Finally, under the rather implausible scenario in which an entire Libre Service inexplicably disappears, but an
organization remains fully committed to the orphaned service, the organization still has recourse. Since
Libre Services are implemented entirely in free software, the organization has guaranteed perpetual
access to the software. If necessary, the organization can reproduce and operate the entire service for
itself.

Complex integration of user environments with services

As indicated in Figure 2, Internet services work by communication over the Internet between a client
application running in the user environment, and a corresponding server application running within the
service.

In the proprietary model, a particular service is tied to certain specific user environments. The service can be
accessed only via one or two user environments, typically a web browser, and possibly also a dedicated client
application provided by the service provider.

Under the Libre Services model, however, there are no proprietary limitations placed on integration between the
User Environment layer and the Libre Services layer in Figure 2. Since the service is completely transparent, thedependence of the service on any particular user environment is severed. Thus any user environment can be
integrated with any Libre Service.

Furthermore, a much more complex level of integration is possible. In particular, free user environments (i.e. user
environments based on free software) can be integrated with Libre Services. And since both the client and server
sides of the service are now completely transparent, this permits a highly complex level of integration between the
two. This allows the development of Internet services with a power and versatility that far exceeds what exists
today.

For these reasons we believe that the free software movement as we see it today is just the beginning. Today, free
software exists at operating system and application level. The Libre Services model brings the power of free
software to the Services level, the User Environment level, and the integration between these two levels. The result
will be a complete transformation of the Internet services industry.

3.3 Benefits to service providers

The Libre Services model also brings important benefits to the providers of Internet services.

A truly open industry

Under the proprietary model the Internet services industry is dominated and controlled by a few large providers.
These dominant players actively stifle competition by means of restrictive business practices, such as the use of
proprietary protocols, highly aggressive patent assertion, and other practices based on ownership and control of
intellectual assets.

Under the Libre Services model, however, there are no intellectual property barriers to business entry, and any
company that wishes to host services can do so. This has major business consequences. The effect of the Libre
Services model is to open the entire services industry to free market entry. This will result in unrestricted
engineering collaboration and business competition, and will catalyze enormous industry growth. Libre Services
will transform the closed industry of today into a truly open industry, in which all participants can compete on a
level playing field.

Collaborative development

In the proprietary model, small service providers can also be marginalized on the basis of service quality and
functionality. A small proprietary service provider cannot compete with the resources of the large providers in their
ability to develop new and better functionality.

Libre Services, however, are based on the large-scale cumulative and collaborative development mechanisms of free
software. Any development contribution made by any engineer, anywhere, becomes immediately available to the
entire constituency of service providers. In effect, the Libre Services model permits global pooling of engineering
development resources.

This provides a level of cooperative development capability that far exceeds the resources of even the largest
proprietary provider. Eventually the Libre Services model can surpass the proprietary model entirely in terms of
service quality and functionality.

Industry representation

As we saw in the case of Instant Messaging, small proprietary providers can also be marginalized in terms of
representation in industry decision-making, for example in establishing technical standards and protocols. This is
because a service provider’s voice in such decision-making is based ultimately on the provider’s size, in terms of
number of subscribers. The major commercial providers are thus able to exert a dominating influence over industry
standards and policies.

The Libre Services movement, however, provides a unified voice of advocacy for all its subscribers. In effect the
Libre Services model permits global pooling of the entire community of Libre Service subscribers as a single
constituency for industry representation.

3.4 Our goal: Creation of the Libre Services industry

Libre Services are the right way to deliver Internet services to the world. As well as providing a number of vitally
important societal benefits, they are also the proper basis for a healthy, thriving and egalitarian services
industry.

Our goal is nothing less than the creation of an entirely new industry: the Libre Services industry. Much as others
established the free software movement twenty years ago, we are establishing the Libre Services movement
today.

3.5 The need for a movement

Possibly the free software movement might have come into existence on its own, in some spontaneous organic way,
even without the actions of the Free Software Foundation. We only get to experience one history, so we
will never know. But at the very least the Free Software Foundation greatly expedited this process by
explicitly formalizing the principles of free software. And quite possibly, without the Free Software
Foundation or some other entity taking this initiative, the free software movement might never have come
into existence as a coherent movement at all. In any event, 20 years later, the free software movement
now exists as a viable alternative to proprietary software. Society is surely better off for having the
choice.

Similar speculations can be made about the Libre Services movement. One could question whether there is any
need for anything so grandiose as a “movement,” with a “blueprint” and a “manifesto.” Possibly it too
might arise spontaneously, without requiring any explicit formalization. Possibly everything we are
trying to achieve is destined to occur anyway, as a natural consequence of the already established free
software movement. One could argue that services are just another form of software, and the existing free
software movement is already sufficient to create its own non-proprietary presence in the services
arena.

It is true that in a purely reductionist sense, services are just another form of software. But from a holistic viewpoint
they are no more “just” an extension of software than biochemistry is “just” an extension of chemistry. Internet
services have a richness and complexity beyond that of general software, and they have a set of dynamics that are
not apparent within the general software arena.

Technical development challenges

The creation of a coherent service is a complex process, presenting its own set of technical challenges. This process
involves the transformation of software components into a service-oriented implementation, integration of software
components, and service aggregation.

The existing technical conventions of free software are not well adapted to these requirements. These requirements
have been partially met by the appearance of hosting platforms, but these have been implemented
on a specialized, ad hoc basis, and the integration of software into services remains inefficient and
costly.

In the longer term a much more general framework is required. This framework must include a coherent set of tools,
policies and conventions for efficient integration of free software components into services, and for consistent
service aggregation. The Libre Services Integration Platform (LSIP) we have developed is one such
framework.

Collaborative development challenges

In addition to these technical issues, managing collaborative development on services presents another set of
challenges. For example, collaboration on services is much more vulnerable to software division (the tendency of
open-source projects to split into rival projects) than collaboration on individual software components. For this and
other reasons services require a set of collaborative policies and methodologies that are significantly different from
the general free software model.

Motivation for development

Furthermore, the motivations driving development of free software and Libre Services are quite different. The initial
“consumer” of free software was the engineering community itself—the community of software engineers who
recognized the need for non-proprietary software tools such as editors, compilers, debuggers, etc. Free software was
developed by engineers for engineers, and so the benefits of free software translated directly into the necessary
action to create it.

By contrast, the “consumer” of services is the end-user, and a completely different set of motivations and
dynamics must come into play to create Libre Services. Though the benefits of Libre Services are very
real and very far-reaching, it is not clear that these benefits translate directly into forces and action to
create them. Under these circumstances an explicit movement is required to provide the necessary
motivation.

3.6 The time is now

In the end, the best anyone can say is that there is uncertainty about the future. One could be complacent, take no
action, and accept whatever default history will hand us. But the stakes are very high. We believe it behooves us to
take positive action to ensure the future, rather than complacently assume that history’s default will be the one we
desire.

The time to do this is now. All the necessary requisites for Libre Services now exist. The key enabling components
are the Linux kernel, the GNU operating system, and the Debian distribution. These components are now
sufficiently complete and mature to make Libre Services a reality.

The window of opportunity for this is unknown. It is possible that the proprietary services may become so
entrenched that they become impossible to dislodge. The number of proprietary subscribers may become so
large and so tightly bound to their service provider, that a different services model can no longer gain
credibility. In this case, the opportunity to establish Libre Services, if not acted upon quickly, may be
lost.

We would like to ensure that, 10 years from now, society will have a non-proprietary alternative to the
proprietary Internet services. As in the case of free software, society will surely be better off for having the
choice.

4 Libre Services: From concept to reality

Figure 3: From concept to reality

Figure 3 provides an overview of the major stages of development needed to establish Libre Services as a reality,
and the principal deliverables needed at each stage. The major requirements are:

Conceptualdefinition.
The
first
requirement
is
a
clear
definition
and
explication
of
the
concept.
The
necessary
intellectual
work
must
be
done
to
define
the
concept
fully,
and
written
materials
created
to
communicate
it
to
others.

The
principal
required
deliverable
is
the
LibreServicesManifesto,
a
comprehensive
description
of
the
Libre
Services
model.

Collaborativeframework.
The
next
requirement
is
a
framework
for
collaborative
engineering
development.
Open-source
software
development
does
not
take
place
in
a
vacuum—it
requires
a
proper
framework
to
proceed
effectively.
This
framework
must
include
a
central
software
repository,
and
automated
mechanisms
to
allow
developers
to
retrieve
software
components
from
the
repository,
then
resubmit
modified
software
back
into
the
repository.
The
framework
must
also
define
the
policies
and
procedures
to
be
followed
for
orderly
collaboration,
and
provide
various
other
resources
for
developers.

The
required
deliverable
is
LibreServices.org,
a
website
and
forum
providing
all
the
necessary
resources
and
functionality.

Engineeringdevelopment.
Next
it
is
necessary
to
do
the
engineering
work
to
create
Libre
Services
software.
This
is
done
by
the
open-source
development
community
within
the
industry
at
large.

The
required
deliverables
are
a
set
of
software
components
and
Libre
Service
Engines.

Deploymentanddelivery.
Finally
it
is
necessary
to
deploy
and
deliver
services
to
individual
subscribers.
This
is
done
by
service
providers
within
the
industry
at
large.

The
required
deliverables
are
a
set
of
deployed,
usable,
first-generation
Libre
Services.

4.1 Transformation of software into services

Figure 4: Transformation of free software into Libre Services

Figure 4 provides an overview of the technical processes required to transform free software components into a
working service for delivery to users.

In addition to free software components, two other important elements are required to create a service: an
integration portal, and LSIP. These three elements are integrated together to create a Libre ServiceEngine.

The Libre Service Engine is a key technological component of the Libre Services model. It is a complete, fully
integrated package of service features and capabilities, ready for deployment and delivery by a service provider. It is
part of the definition of a Libre Service that such an engine exist, ready for deployment without requiring any further
software integration work.

It is the responsibility of a service provider to create a deployed service based on the service engine. This
includes binding the service to a specific Internet domain, branding the service with the provider’s trade
name, and providing the technical and business structures required to deliver the service and support
users.

The vertical line in Figure 4 represents an important conceptual point of demarcation in the Libre Services model. It
is the division between industry-general engineering activity, and provider-specific deployment activity. Engineering
development is a collective activity, undertaken by the industry as a whole. The resulting assets are industry-generic,
available for use by all industry participants. Deployment and delivery, on the other hand, is undertaken by a
commercial or non-commercial service provider. The resulting deployed service is associated with and carries the
brand name of a specific provider.

Thus LSIP and all service engines are industry-generic resources. ByName, a deployed service, is associated with a
specific service provider, in this case Neda.

In the Libre Services model any engineering development, taking place at any point within the industry, becomes
immediately available to the entire industry. This means that differentiation and competition among service
providers no longer takes place on the basis of service functionality. Instead it must now take place purely on
the basis of deployment and delivery characteristics such as service cost, reliability, and customer
service.

4.2 Freedom in principle vs. freedom in practice

Both free software and Libre Services offer total transparency and freedom of action. In the case of free software,
anyone can copy the software, run it on their own computer, modify it, and redistribute it to others. Libre
Services provide an analogous set of freedoms. In the case of Libre Services, anyone can reproduce
the entire service, operate the service on their own server, modify the service, and redistribute it to
others.

These freedoms are real, and in principle can be exercised by anyone. In practice, however, exercising these
freedoms requires specialized skills and expertise. For someone to modify a free software program they must first
set up the necessary programming environment, including an editor, compiler, linker and various other tools. They
must have the necessary technical skills to do this, and they must also have the necessary programming skills to do
the software modifications.

Modifying a Libre Service requires even greater expertise. In addition to all the skills required for free
software programming, someone wishing to do this must also have the necessary technical skills to set up
and operate their own server. Exercising programming freedom in the context of Libre Services is
therefore more technically demanding than for free software, and may not be practical for an individual
programmer.

In practice therefore, the freedoms associated with free software and Libre Services can be exercised only by a
minority of people with the necessary expertise. The majority of people within society at large have neither the
know-how nor the inclination to do hands-on software programming, and so in practical terms cannot exercise these
freedoms at all.

Nevertheless, all of society benefits from the existence of these freedoms, because the results are available to all. In
the case of free software, a community of free software programmers exists, who do actual hands-on
software programming. The result is new and better software applications, which can then be used by
anyone. In addition, free software development is done in a open democratic manner, by members of
society itself, rather than being under the control of a specific private party, as is the case for proprietary
software.

Society benefits from Libre Services in much the same way, though there are some important differences. In the case
of Libre Services there will also be a community of services developers, with the technical expertise to do actual
services development.

But for Libre Services this development will more typically be undertaken as a group activity rather than an
individual activity. Many free software programs are stand-alone applications, running on an individual’s own
computer, and here software development is something that can reasonably and practically by done by the individual
programmer. Libre Services, on the other hand, are normally operated by and provided to groups of
people, rather than individuals. Thus in the Libre Services domain, the analogous thing to the individual
user is the collective group of users, who wish to operate their own Libre Services and/or do services
development.

But as with free software, the results of this development are then available to all of society. And as with free
software, this development is done in a open democratic manner, rather than being under the control of a proprietary
service provider.

Another difference between the free software and Libre Services models is how the end results are utilized by
society at large. Among other things, free software frequently takes the form of a stand-alone application,
suitable for use by an individual user. In this case the beneficiary is the individual user who can run the
program.

But a Libre Service is not usually something that is run by an individual user. Instead, Libre Services are utilized by
society at large via two different sets of beneficiaries. As a service, there is both a provider and a user of the service.
In general these need not be the same entity, and both are beneficiaries of the Libre Services model. The results of
Libre Services development are available for deployment by any service provider—commercial or non-commercial;
public, corporate, or private. And the resulting deployed services are then available to the community of end users of
the services.

Thus in the case of both free software and Libre Services, all of society benefits from a set of freedoms available in
principle to all, but exercised in practice by few.

4.3 Local software vs. network service

As we noted in Section 2.1, there is a major trend towards providing functionality as a remote service, rather than as
a local application. The commercial service providers are actively promoting this trend, since this directly increases
consumption of their own services. As a result, network-based services are becoming a pervasive model for
how people access computing resources and functionality. However it may not necessarily be in the
user’s best interests to access functionality remotely, when equivalent functionality can be provided
locally.

Some types of computing functionality are not practical for a user to run locally, and such functionality must be
provided as a network service. An obvious example is an SMTP e-mail server. Technically one could run this as a
local application, but it is far more convenient and cost effective to implement this functionality on a centralized
server, shared by multiple users. Another example would be search—it is not feasible for an individual user
to run an Internet search service locally. And many other examples. Certain types of functionality
are inherently service-oriented, and in practical terms must be implemented in the form of a network
service.

On the other hand there are some software components and functionality that must be run locally. At these two
extremes there is no discussion to be had—inherently service-oriented functionality must be provided as a service,
and inherently local functionality must be provided locally.

But intermediate between these two extremes there is a large class of software components that can reasonably be
implemented either as a local program or a remote service, and here the merits of the two approaches are open to
discussion.

Certainly, the network-based computing model provides a number of important advantages. These
include:

Reduced
total
cost
of
ownership

Ease
of
access
to
specialized
software

Ease
of
maintenance

Cost
effectiveness
of
shared
computing
resources

However, there are also a number of major disadvantages to accessing computing resources remotely, when
equivalent functionality can be provided locally. These are:

Privacyandconfidentiality.
In
the
case
of
a
proprietary
software
application
versus
a
proprietary
service,
users’
privacy
is
far
better
protected
if
their
personal
information
(address
book,
calendar,
etc.)
is
maintained
locally
rather
than
remotely.
As
we
have
noted
elsewhere,
commercial
service
providers
are
under
no
obligation
to
protect
users’
privacy
and
civil
liberties,
and
have
already
shown
their
willingness
to
compromise
both
of
these.

This
consideration
is
less
of
an
issue
in
the
case
of
local
free
software
program
versus
a
Libre
Service,
since
the
Libre
Services
model
provides
far
greater
protection
of
users’
privacy
and
civil
liberties
than
the
proprietary
model.

Integration.
The
greater
practicality
of
deep
integration
between
applications,
when
these
are
run
locally.

Control.
Running
software
locally
provides
users
with
a
greater
degree
of
control
over
their
computing
environment.
Users
can
set
up
and
configure
their
local
computing
environment
according
to
their
own
choices
and
preferences.
For
example
users
have
choice
over
which
specific
software
component
they
will
use
for
a
particular
type
of
functionality,
or
what
revision
they
will
use.
When
the
functionality
is
provided
as
a
service,
these
choices
must
be
left
to
the
service
provider.

Programmingfreedom.
A
further
dimension
of
user
control
is
the
ability
to
make
hands-on
software
modifications—i.e.
exercise
the
programming
freedom
guaranteed
by
free
software
and
Libre
Services.
In
the
case
of
a
local
free
software
program,
it
is
possible
for
a
user
with
the
necessary
technical
skills
to
set
up
a
programming
environment
and
modify
the
software.

In
the
case
of
the
same
functionality
running
as
a
service,
however,
it
may
not
be
feasible
for
the
user
to
modify
the
service.
If
the
user
is
part
of
a
group
of
people
who
are
running
and
maintaining
their
own
service,
then
the
user
can
indeed
modify
the
service,
just
as
an
individual
user
can
modify
a
local
program.
But
if
the
user
is
an
individual
subscriber
to
a
service
being
run
by
a
second-party
service
provider,
the
user
cannot
modify
the
service.

Therefore
an
additional
advantage
to
running
software
locally
rather
than
remotely,
is
that
those
with
the
necessary
technical
skills
can
modify
the
software.

But
note
that
this
consideration
applies
only
to
those
with
the
skills
and
inclination
to
do
hands-on
software
modifications.
For
the
great
majority
of
non-technical
users,
this
difference
between
local
programs
and
remote
services
does
not
apply.

There are thus a number of reasons to maintain computing functionality locally rather than remotely. In general, the
partitioning of functionality between the local free software environment and the remote Libre Service should be
based on consideration of all the relevant issues.

Other considerations

The above discussion focusses on providing functionality on a user’s desktop rather than as a network service. But a
user may wish to access her services when she is away from her home desktop, for example at an Internet cafe.
Under these circumstances the user may want to have a full suite of computing functionality provided entirely by the
service.

It must also be borne in mind that the Libre Services model has a very significant business dimension. It fully
supports a model in which services are provided in a commercial, for-profit context, and in this context commercial
Libre Service providers must be responsive to their market.

Regardless of the merits of maintaining local functionality, users of the service may wish to access their computing
resources remotely. If Libre Service providers are to compete against the proprietary service providers they must
fully cater to the demands of their users in this respect.

5 Separation of responsibility: FPF and Neda

5.1 Areas of responsibility

As shown in Figure 3, the major requirements for establishing Libre Services fall under different areas of
responsibility.

The resources to be created in the conceptual definition and collaborative framework arenas are general
industry enablers, and are sufficiently bounded in scope to be created by a single organization. Therefore
major responsibility for creation of these resources will be taken by the Free Protocols Foundation
(FPF).

The scope of the required engineering and deployment work, on the other hand, is too large for any one company or
organization acting alone, and must be undertaken by the industry at large.

Engineering development

The engineering development work is a communal activity, and can be undertaken by any individual or
organization. In the free software model, software developed by any entity is released and licensed
under the General Public License (GPL) or other open-source license [6], and so becomes immediately
available to the entire open-source development community. In this collaborative environment it is not
of any great significance who or which organization creates any particular component of the Libre
Services software. The body of Libre Services software is not owned by anyone, in any restrictive
sense.

At the outset the FPF is playing a major role in building the necessary engineering resources. We are actively
developing LSIP and a set of starting-point service engines. As others begin to participate we expect that this work
will evolve into a distributed industry-wide effort, with the FPF playing an appropriate coordination
role.

Deployment and delivery

Deployment and delivery of Libre Services is an essential requirement for their adoption. If Libre Services are
to come into widespread usage, they must be operated and supported for the end user. In practical
terms, this is something that must be done by service providers in a commercial context. Somewhere
along the line, there must be a business model that supports the delivery of Libre Services to individual
users.

However, as a business activity, this falls outside the responsibility of the FPF. The necessary deployment work must
therefore take place in an entirely separate context.

5.2 Complementary roles of FPF and Neda

We have established a separation of responsibility to address this issue. Responsibility for moving this initiative
forward will be divided between two separate entities:

The
FreeProtocolsFoundation
is
responsible
for
creating
all
the
assets
required
in
the
conceptual
definition
and
collaborative
framework
arenas.
This
consists
of
the
work
to
articulate
the
concept
and
create
the
necessary
development
framework.

The
FPF
is
also
taking
responsibility
for
creating
momentum
in
the
engineering
development
arena.
We
are
doing
the
necessary
work
to
create
a
set
of
starting-point
engineering
resources,
and
we
are
establishing
a
framework
to
enable
collective
participation
by
others.

NedaCommunications,Inc.
is
responsible
for
creating
the
necessary
deliverables
and
demonstrating
proof-of-concept
in
the
deployment
arena.
This
consists
of
the
work
to
deploy
and
operate
a
set
of
usable,
first-generation
Libre
Services.

The Free Protocols Foundation and Neda Communications thus play complementary roles in moving this initiative
forward.

5.3 Conflict of interest

The relationship between the FPF and Neda is not unlike that between a professional association and a member of
that profession; for example the American Bar Association and a particular law firm. The FPF is a voice of advocacy
for the Libre Services industry as a whole. It has a moral authority, and its ultimate mandate is to serve the public
interest.

Neda Communications, on the other hand, is merely one company that conducts engineering and business operations
within this industry. At the outset it is playing a unique leadership role, but eventually we hope it will be just one of
many companies delivering Libre Services to users.

But what is highly unusual about this, is that the Libre Services industry does not yet exist; and the enabling
framework for the industry, and the first company within the industry, are both being established at the same time.
Furthermore, these two structures are being established by the same persons. The authors of this paper are directors
of the FPF, and also employees of Neda. Not only are we moving this initiative forward under the FPF, we are also
doing the necessary deployment work under Neda.

This creates a conflict of interest issue. In the long run, it is not possible for the same persons to manage both the
FPF, and a commercial entity within the Libre Services industry. At some point these responsibilities must be
separated entirely.

But for the moment this conflict cannot be avoided, since we cannot divide ourselves in two, either as individuals or
as a team.

In the short run, however, we believe that this conflict of interest is manageable. This is because in
every capacity—we as individuals, the FPF as an organization, and Neda as an organization—we share
the same unifying philosophy. In each capacity we are fully committed to the principles of the free
software movement, and in each capacity we share the same ultimate vision: completely open software
and Internet services industries, in which all computing and communications is based entirely on freesoftware.

In particular, although Neda is a for-profit company, in all its engineering and business practices it fully conforms to
the philosophy and principles of the FPF. All protocols developed by Neda are patent-free; all software developed by
Neda is free software; all services developed by Neda are Libre Services. The potential conflict of interest is thus
greatly mitigated.

It must also be emphasized that, since Libre Services are completely non-proprietary, there are no intellectual
property barriers to participation in this industry. Neda enjoys no proprietary advantages whatsoever, and any
company that wishes to participate is free to do so. What we are creating is a truly open industry, in which all
participants must compete on a truly level playing field. And the ultimate beneficiary of this is society at
large.

6 Libre Services: Bootstrapping an industry

We are proposing an entirely new model for delivery of Internet services. This is an ambitious initiative, and will
require the participation of many others to turn into a reality.

So far what we have described has been largely theoretical. We have described a new concept, and outlined the
major technical requirements to implement it. But to make all this real, a lot more than this is required. An explicit
strategy is needed to bootstrap Libre Services into existence.

The goal of our bootstrapping strategy is to create deployed, usable, first-generation Libre Services. This means that
all the requirements of Figure 3 must be fully addressed.

The FPF is taking primary responsibility for the first two requirements in Figure 3: the conceptual
definition, and creation of the collaborative framework. We are creating the Libre Services Manifesto
to articulate and promote the concept, and we are building the required development framework at
LibreServices.org.

But the scope of the next two requirements—the necessary engineering and deployment work—is far too large to be
undertaken by any single organization or group of people acting alone. The scope of work required to build a real
Libre Services industry is enormous, and can only be accomplished as a collective enterprise by many organizations
and individuals.

The key to enabling this collective effort is a coherent basis for participation.

6.1 A project-based model for participation

We have established a coherent basis and model for collaborative bootstrapping of the Libre Services industry. This
consists of two major components:

We
have
done
the
initial
development
work
to
create
a
set
of
starting-point,
reference
software
components.
These
include
LSIP,
and
a
coordinated
family
of
Libre
Service
Engines.

We
have
established
a
project-based
model
for
collaborative
participation.

We have defined a set of projects, representing the next stages of work required to move this initiative forward. Each
project is largely independent and self-contained, and ready to be undertaken by an interested group or organization
immediately. This project-based model allows efficient, coordinated collaboration on multiple bootstrapping tasks in
parallel.

Each project is defined in the form of a Project Document, providing a complete specification for the project. The
complete list of projects and Project Documents is provided in a separate article. See the article titled Libre Services:Projects for bootstrapping.

In this project-based model the role of the FPF is largely one of coordination and support. We will take
responsibility for defining projects, creating and maintaining the Project Documents, and seeking out project
sponsors.

6.2 Deployment and delivery

As a commercial activity, deployment and delivery falls outside the scope of the FPF. We therefore rely on
independent service providers to do the necessary deployment work. At the outset Neda will take responsibility for
this. The primary role of Neda is to demonstrate engineering and business proof-of-concept by deploying usable
first-generation services.

As the bootstrapping process gains momentum, we hope and expect that other service providers will also deploy the
services.

6.3 An invitation to participate

We invite and encourage others to join us in this ambitious initiative. We invite active participation by all relevant
constituencies:

Engineering.
To
do
the
work
to
build
usable,
first-generation
Libre
Services.

Business.
To
deploy
and
deliver
first-generation
services
in
a
commercial
context.

The Libre Services Forum at LibreServices.org provides a variety of resources to assist organizations and
individuals who wish to participate.

The forum hosts a number of mailing lists to facilitate various forms of participation. These include a general
interest mailing list, a mailing list oriented towards engineering development, and a mailing list oriented towards
business development. These provide a means for organizations and individuals to announce their participation, seek
out partners, and coordinate cooperative effort.

Immediate mission-critical tasks are the creation of the Libre Services Manifesto, and the engineering work to create
usable first-generation services. Those who are interested in promoting the Libre Services model can assist us by
contributing additional material to the Manifesto, revising existing material, and translating Manifesto articles into
foreign languages.

Organizations and individual programmers who wish to participate in the engineering effort can do so through
the software repository and development resources at LibreServices.org. All FPF-sponsored Libre
Services software is available at LibreServices.org, licensed under the GNU General Public License
(GPL).

7 Starting point for bootstrapping

Bootstrapping of Libre Services is not starting from zero. As part of our framework for collaboration we have
created an initial set of starting-point engineering and deployment assets.

We have done substantial engineering development work to create a set of reference Libre Services
software components. These are available for immediate use as the basis for collaborative engineering
development.

Under Neda we have also done the initial work to demonstrate deployment proof-of-concept.

7.1 Engineering development

Libre Services Integration Platform

We have completed initial development of LSIP, the Libre Services Integration Platform. LSIP is the basis for
efficient services development, and a key component of the Libre Services model. It consists of a uniform set of
tools, policies and conventions for integration of software into services. LSIP is now sufficiently complete and
mature for use as a general industry resource.

Libre Service Engines

We have done the intellectual work to define the requirements for a coordinated set of services, allowing
highly generalized interactions among each other. We have identified the key abstractions that must be
represented within such a set, including such things as individual persons, businesses, physical locations, and
events. We have then designed a family of services to represent these abstractions, and to allow rich and
complex interactions among them. The result is a coherent and powerful model for generalized Internet
services.

Based on this general conceptual architecture we have created an initial set of starting-point Libre Service Engines.
Thus far we have created service engines to provide the following functionality:

A
service
for
named
individual
persons.

A
service
for
individual
persons
referred
to
by
a
numerical
ID,
and
allowing
usage
via
numeric
devices.

A
service
for
individual
persons
referred
to
by
an
alias.

A
service
for
preserving
the
memory
of
deceased
individual
persons.

We are in the process of creating service engines based on the other abstractions and usage models in our general
conceptual architecture. These include services based on the generalized abstraction of business entities, physical
locations, and events; services for publication of information; and services allowing complex interaction among the
various types of abstracted entities.

Everything we have built—the LSIP development platform, and all the starting-point service engines—is available
as free software licensed under the GPL. These are intended to be reference implementations, freely available for
examination, evaluation and reuse by the software engineering community.

7.2 Deployment and delivery

Under Neda we have deployed an initial set of working Libre Services based on the starting-point service engines.
The first of these is the ByName service. ByName provides a basic set of Internet services for the individual user,
including a personal domain, personal website, e-mail, mobile messaging, integrated support for mobility, and a few
other capabilities. It is the world’s first Libre Service!

Libre Services are thus not merely an abstract concept—they are a real construct that exists today.

Thus far we have deployed the following services:

ByName.
As
basic
set
of
services
for
the
individual
user.

http://www.ByName.com

ByNumber.
A
similar
set
of
services
to
ByName,
but
based
on
a
number
assigned
to
the
user
instead
of
the
user’s
name.
This
allows
access
to
the
services
using
numeric
devices
such
as
telephone
keypads.

http://www.ByNumber.com

ByAlias.
A
similar
set
of
services
to
ByName,
but
allowing
the
use
of
an
alias
instead
of
the
user’s
real
name.

http://www.ByAlias.com

ByMemory.
A
set
of
services
for
preserving
the
memory
of
deceased
persons.
These
include
features
for
creating
memorials
and
biographies,
and
for
creating
and
maintaining
shared
genealogies.

http://www.ByMemory.net

These initial services are in varying stages of development, in some cases providing only very basic capabilities. But
they are sufficient to demonstrate end-to-end proof of the Libre Services concept. They show that it is possible to
deliver real services to an end-user, using nothing but free software.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the following persons for their assistance in the preparation of this paper: Steven Caro,
Richard Stallman.

References

[1]Free
Software
Movement.
A
large
body
of
writing
and
references
describing
the
philosophy
of
the
Free
Software
Movement
is
available
at:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html

[2]Free
Software
Foundation.
An
organization
dedicated
to
the
promotion
and
support
of
free
software.
http://www.fsf.org/